commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Remy Maucherat <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] [daemon] Moving to commons proper
Date Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:19:14 GMT wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>>Less coupling. Deamon is not the only way to start an application -
>>>and we're not in the business of setting standards for how an
>>>application must be started.
>>Maybe my question comes down to why are we _not_ in the business of setting
>>standards for how an application is started (using the Daemon component).
> I don't see anywhere in the goals of jakarta-commons 'standard body'.
> I personally think we have more than enough 'standards' and 'standard 
> bodies' and organizations setting standards - and enough bloated or 
> useless or duplicated APIs. But if you want more - there are other
> places you can go ( JCP, other projects who have 'setting standards'
> in their charter, etc ).
>>I 'get' the argument for the main method. Reflecting that makes sense (its
>>static, and its defined by Java ).
> I mentioned 'main' because Java doesn't define an interface for it. It 
> doesn't define an interface for 'bean'. JSR77 doesn't define an interface
> for starting/stopping services in j2ee, just patterns ( exposed via jmx ).
> Abusive use of interfaces can have a lot of bad consequences ( that 
> also includes certain 'marker' interfaces IMO ).

Yes, I completely agree. The job deamon does should be implemented in a 
very generic way, and indeed doesn't have to require anything from the 


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message